Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2007, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Ivan Gazidis (USA), member Percival Majavu (South Africa), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (UAE), member on the claim presented by the player Xxx, Xxx, as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club Xxx, Xxx, as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.
I. Facts of the case 1. On 5 January 2006, the player Xxx (hereinafter: the Claimant), submitted a claim at FIFA against the club Xxx (hereinafter: the Respondent), requesting the payment of: - allegedly outstanding salaries for the months July, August, September and October 2005 in the amount of USD 17,000, - allegedly due costs for flight tickets in the amount of EUR 1,552 and - medical expenses allegedly incurred in the amounts of USD 1,974 and EUR 1,670. 2. The Claimant s claim is based on an employment contract signed between him and the Respondent on 5 July 2005, valid for 6 months during the season 2005, i.e. from July until December 2005, according to which he is entitled to receive a signing on fee in the amount of USD 40,000 and salaries in the amount of USD 27,000, payable in equal monthly instalments of USD 4,500 each, and 2 annual flight tickets. 3. In particular, the Claimant argued that, on 11 July 2005, he became ill. As a consequence, during July 2005, he had to play in pain and to see the Respondent s doctor several times and, from the end of July 2005 until his recovery in October 2005, he was completely prevented from playing for the Respondent. In this sense, the Claimant stated that during his absence due to his illness he had to undergo several medical examinations and treatments. 4. Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that after having returned to the Respondent on 15 October 2005, on 26 October 2005, he was forced to sign a second contract with the Respondent, valid for the 6 months during the season 2006, i.e. from January until June 2006, despite not having been paid the claimed salaries, the travelling costs and the medical expenses under the first contract. In particular, the Claimant stated that after having been forced to sign the second employment contract but having been asked to leave the club at the same time, on 27 October 2005, he left the Respondent and returned definitely to xxx, where he was contracted by the club Xxx as from January 2006. 5. In its response of 13 April 2006, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (hereinafter: the Respondent) lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant/Counter- Respondent (hereinafter: the Claimant), by means of which it requested that the Claimant should resume duty with it and, otherwise, refund the paid signing on fee in the amount of USD 40,000. In this sense, the Respondent argued that the Claimant failed to comply with his contractual obligations deriving from an 2
employment contract signed between the contractual parties on 6 July 2005, valid for the duration of one year, i.e. from July 2005 until 30 June 2006. In particular, the Respondent stated that the Claimant left the club and returned to Xxx without its knowledge and authorization after having received the signing on fee on 8 July 2005. 6. In fact, the Claimant was hospitalized in Xxx from 31 July until 2 August 2005, in Xxx on 3 August 2005 as well as in Xxx on 6 September 2005 and from 4 to 5 October 2005. According to the medical report issued by a Xxx doctor on 4 August 2005 the Claimant was recommended 4 weeks of regimen on bed. However, according to the medical report issued by a Xxx doctor on 8 September 2005 the Claimant had indeed to go on with his treatment but was found to be able to play football on a regular basis. This diagnosis was confirmed by the medical report issued by the same Xxx doctor on 6 October 2005. 7. The player presented documentary evidence regarding the following expenses allegedly incurred: - return flight tickets from Xxx to Xxx in the amount of EUR 1,445 (EUR 916 + EUR 529), - medical expenses in Xxx (including the return flight tickets from Xxx to Xxx) in the amount of EUR 1,679 (EUR 512 + EUR 524 + EUR 392 + EUR 164 + EUR 87), - medical expenses in Xxx in the amount of USD 840 (USD 315 + USD 25 + USD 250 + USD 150 + USD 100) and - medical expenses in Xxx (including the flight tickets from Xxx to Xxx and from Xxx to Xxx) in the amount of USD 1,231 (USD 86 + USD 298 + USD 812 + USD 35). 8. On 5 January 2006, the Association of Football Federations of Xxx refused to issue the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the Claimant upon request of the Football Association of Xxx dated 30 December 2005 due to the existing contract between the Claimant and the Respondent. 9. On 26 January 2006, the Association of Football Federations of Xxx informed the Football Association of Xxx that the Claimant according to its information was registered for its member club, Xxx. Therefore, it asked the Football Association of Xxx to urge its affiliate to send the Claimant back to the Respondent. 10. The Football Association of Xxx omitted to provide FIFA with information regarding the circumstances of the Claimant s alleged registration for its affiliated club, Xxx, despite having been invited to do so on 3 and 19 May 2006. 3
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber had to analyze whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 January 2006, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing Procedures (edition 2005) to matters pending before the decision making bodies of FIFA are applicable to the matter at hand. 2. With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the abovementioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the current version of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving an Xxx player and an Xxx club regarding a dispute related to an employment contract. 4. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the relevant contract(s) at the basis of the present dispute was (were) signed in July 2005 and the claim was lodged at FIFA on 5 January 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfers of Players (edition 2005, hereinafter: the Regulations) are applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 5. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that, on the one hand, the Claimant based on an employment contract signed by and between the parties on 5 July 2005, valid for 6 months, claimed allegedly outstanding salaries for the months of July, August, September and October 2005 in the amount of USD 17,000, allegedly due costs for flight tickets in the amount of EUR 1,552 and medical expenses allegedly incurred in the amounts of USD 1,974 and EUR 1,670. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent claimed the reimbursement of an allegedly 4
paid signing on fee in the amount of USD 40,000 for breach of another employment contract signed by and between the parties on 6 July 2005, valid for one year. 6. In this regard, the Chamber first and foremost acknowledged that according to the employment contract dated 5 July 2005 the Claimant was entitled to a signing on fee in the amount of USD 40,000, salaries in the amount of USD 27,000, payable in 6 equal monthly instalments of USD 4,500 each, and 2 annual flight tickets, whereas, the other employment contract dated 6 July 2005 only provided the Claimant for the right to receive a basic remuneration in the amount of AZN 1,000,000 (approximately USD 1,174). In particular, the Chamber noted that the employment contract dated 5 July 2005 stipulated better remuneration terms for the Claimant than the one dated 6 July 2005. Therefore, the Chamber established that, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, only the employment contract dated 5 July 2005 (hereinafter: the relevant employment contract) should be taken into account in order to duly consider the parties respective financial claims. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent failed to pay him the above-mentioned monies until his departure on 27 October 2005 (cf. point II.5.), then forced him to sign a second contract for another 6 months, valid from January until June 2006, and finally asked him to leave the club. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant affirmed that he was absent from work as from July 2005 until 15 October 2005 due to an illness and the pertinent medical examinations and treatments, which he had to undergo. 8. On the other hand, the Chamber took due note that the Respondent argued that the Claimant abandoned the club without its knowledge and authorization on 8 July 2005 and, therefore, the Claimant was not entitled to receive any payments. 9. Taking into consideration the above, the Chamber stated that in order to duly consider the questions whether a contractual breach occurred, with or without just cause, who is to be deemed responsible and what the (financial) consequences of such a breach will be (cf. art. 17 of the Regulations) it was crucial to establish whether or not the Claimant s illness justified his absence from work. 10. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was hospitalized in Xxx from 31 July until 2 August 2005, in Xxx on 3 August 2005 as well as in Xxx on 6 September 2005 and from 4 to 5 October 2005. In particular, the Chamber took note that according to the medical report issued by a Xxx doctor on 4 August 2005 the Claimant was recommended 4 weeks of regimen on bed. However, the 5
Chamber also acknowledged that according to the medical opinion issued by a Xxx doctor on 8 September 2005 the Claimant was found to be able to play football on a regular basis. The Chamber emphasised that his diagnosis was confirmed by the medical report issued by the same Xxx doctor on 6 October 2005. 11. In view of the above, the Chamber emphasised that it could be clearly established that the Claimant due to his illness was prevented from playing for the Respondent during July and August 2005, however, that he was able to play again for the Respondent as from the beginning of September 2005, in particular, 8 September 2005. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant did not resume duty with the Respondent immediately after he had been found able to play, i.e. on 8 September 2007. On the contrary, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant only returned to the Respondent on 15 October 2007, i.e. more than one month after the recovery from his illness. 13. Moreover, the Chamber stressed that it was undisputed that the Claimant left the Respondent for medical examinations and treatments in Xxx and Xxx on 3 August and 6 September 2005 respectively without the Respondent s authorization. 14. In view of the above, the Chamber emphasised that the Claimant s unauthorized absence from work was only justified by his illness until the day when he was found to be able to play again, i.e. on 8 September 2005. 15. Taking into account that the Claimant was absent from work without any reason as from 8 September 2005 until 15 October 2005, the Chamber decided that the relevant employment contact had to be considered as unilaterally terminated by the Claimant as per 8 September 2005. 16. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that, in principle, a player who was not able to play for medical reasons, had the right to receive the contractually stipulated remuneration during his absence from work. 17. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent was liable to cancel all outstanding monies under the employment contract until the date on which the employment relation was considered as terminated, i.e. until 8 September 2005 (cf. point II.15.). 18. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of USD 9,000 (2 x USD 4,500) corresponding to the salaries for the months of July and August 2005 and the amount of EUR 529 6
corresponding to the costs for the flight ticket from Xxx to Xxx occurred at the beginning of the relevant employment relationship on 5 July 2005 equal to USD 630 (date of currency conversion 5 July 2005). 19. Moreover, with regard to the Claimant s claim for medical expenses the Chamber emphasised that only the costs for medical examinations and treatments incurred before 3 August 2005 could be taken into consideration, since on that date the Claimant left the Respondent without its authorization. Therefore, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant the medical expenses incurred in Xxx from 31 July until 2 August 2007 in the amount of USD 840 (USD 315 + USD 25 + USD 250 + USD 150 + USD 100). 20. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive the amount USD 10,470 (USD 9,000 + USD 840 + USD 630) from the Respondent. 21. Subsequently, the Chamber drew its attention to the Respondent s counter-claim for the refund of the signing on fee paid in the amount of USD 40,000. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the reason for which the employment contract had to be considered as early terminated was the unauthorized absence of the Claimant from work during more than one month. In particular, the Chamber pointed out that in spite of the circumstances that the Claimant may have had valid reasons to leave the Respondent, i.e. for medical treatment, he should previously have acquired the Respondent s written consent to do so and he should have resumed duty with the Respondent immediately after his recovery. 22. In the light of the above, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the Claimant breached the relevant employment contract without just cause. 23. Consequently, the Chamber decided that in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations the Claimant was liable to pay compensation for breach of contract to the Respondent. 24. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 8 July 2005, the amount of USD 40,000 was paid by the Respondent as signing on fee to the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant was entitled to receive all the monies until the termination of the contract (cf. point II. 17.) and, therefore, also the amount of USD 13,333 (2 x USD 6,666) corresponding to the proportion of the signing on fee for the months of July and August 2005. 7
25. As a consequence, the Chamber emphasised that for the calculation of the compensation the above-mentioned proportion of the signing on fee to which the Claimant was entitled (USD 13,333) had to be taken into consideration. 26. In particular, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had to reimburse the Respondent the amount of USD 26,667 corresponding to the total amount of USD 40,000 paid by the Respondent as signing on fee less the said proportion of the signing on fee in the amount of USD 13,333 to which the Claimant was entitled. 27. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of USD 26,667 (USD 40,000 USD 13,333) as compensation for breach of contract and, thus, to partially accept the Respondent s counter-claim. 28. Finally, and summarising the above considerations, the Chamber determined that, on the one hand, the Claimant was entitled to the amount of USD 10,470 and, on the other hand, the Respondent was entitled to the amount of USD 26,667. 29. Therefore, the Chamber in order to simplify matters decided that the Claimant must pay the total amount of USD 16,197 (USD 26,667 USD 10,470) to the Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim lodged by the Claimant, Xxx, is rejected. 2. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent, Xxx, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant, Xxx, must pay the total amount of USD 16,197 to the Respondent, Xxx, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. The Respondent, Xxx, is directed to inform the Claimant, Xxx, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 5. In the event that the above-mentioned sum is not paid within the stated deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as from expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted to the FIFA s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. 6. Any further claim of the Respondent, Xxx, is rejected. 8
7. According to art. 61 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org Markus Kattner Deputy General Secretary Encl. CAS directives 9